Quote"So at the end of the day... it really doesn't matter what we do. They (these two boys and their radical Islam brainwashers) hate us for what we represent. They attack us repeatedly around the world, and we whack them. The finger wagging is a monkey dance (read Rory Miller). Parsing events to make a point is missing the forest for the trees. Nobody would have ruined OBL's harem if he wasn't a bad boy and planned the slaughter of over 3000 innocent civilians from around the world. Obama wouldn't be sending drones into Pakistan if the ISI wasn't harboring Taliban allies who wander across the border to fight NATO troops in Afghanistan. We wouldn't have whacked Saddam if he wasn't shooting at our planes in the no-fly zones. And those no-fly zones wouldn't have existed if Saddam wasn't exterminating Kurdish and Shia muslims after his invasion of Kuwait. Etc, etc, etc."

It DOES matter what you do!!! if you keep on indiscriminately killing the women and children of other nations they will hate you, there is no brainwashing involved....if by " What you represnet" you mean that, then every civilised man on earth will hate you

this from a fotmer first secretary to the Treasury under Regan ( Dr.Paul Craig Roberts)

Quote[b]The United States government has been at war for eleven years. The US military destroyed Iraq, leaving the country and millions of lives in ruins and releasing sectarian blood-letting that had been kept in check by the secular Saddam Hussein government. On any given day in “liberated” Iraq, the death toll is as high as during the height of the US attempted occupation.

In Afghanistan eleven years of US attempted occupation has had no more success than a decade of Soviet occupation. The Afghans are still not worn down despite more than two decades of war with the two superpowers. Like the Soviets, the Americans have managed to kill many women, children, and village elders, but precious few warriors. In place of the Soviet puppet government there is Washington’s puppet government. That is the only change, and Washington’s puppet is no more secure than the Soviet one was.

In Libya, Washington used its corrupt NATO puppets and CIA-recruited bandits to overthrow another stable government, that of Muammar Gaddafi, leaving Libya mired in sectarian violence. A stable prosperous country has simply been destroyed by western governments that profess human rights values and condemn China and Russia for not having any.

Washington has also been killing civilians with drones and air strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, two countries with which Washington is not at war but has purchased the governments, paying the Pakistani and Yemeni governments for the right to murder their citizens and destabilizing both countries in the process.

Do you get it yet Bill?

The term " radical Islam" is meaningless it is not the name of A terrorist organisation ( and FYI neither is al Qaeda).............the IRA were terrorists with an agenda...these guys had no more of an agenda than the sandy hook killer or the batman killer.they do not belong to an organisationyou haven't had payback yet, be thankfull for that

jorvik wrote:you [the United States] keep on indiscriminately killing the women and children of other nations

No.

The United States invented laser-guided bombing and precision targeting from a distance via cruise missiles and drone attacks. There is no nation on this earth with both the will and the technical capability to minimize innocent civilian casualties while targeting its enemies. These capabilities and this will were developed in the environment of CNN and al qaeda recruitment videos. The U.S. military isn't that stupid.

I know Paul Craig Roberts. He got his bachelors degree from Georgia Tech, and his PhD from <ahem...> The University of Virginia. Yea... Both his degrees were in economics. Not politics. Not foreign policy.

If you want your taxes done, don't go to a plumber. If you want an expert in politics and foreign policy, don't go to Roberts.

Here is your man. He is both a graduate of and a professor at The University of Virginia. Oh and he got his doctorate in politics from Oxford. Not that I'm name dropping...

I worked one-on-one with another economist who serves on the board of directors of the International Health Economics Association. Yep... Randy would get red-faced and start spitting when talking politics. We all learned not to go there. But I learned a lot about risk adjustment in health care financing from him, and he plays a mean game of pool.

jorvik wrote:The term " radical Islam" is meaningless

Apparently you refuse to read.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

jorvik wrote:the IRA were terrorists with an agenda.

Oh Ray, I knew you wouldn't disappoint me.

jorvik wrote:Do you get it yet Bill?

Yes, Ray.

I get that you think the U.S. deserves to have innocents *intentionally* slaughtered en masse the way some men think a woman who wears "the wrong clothes" deserves to be raped.

I get that you don't like U.S. foreign policy.

I get that you want an argument. I get a lot of obvious things I won't mention because I don't want to give you one.

I get that you're enamored with your point of view. I get that you think posting more times will make your point(s) more valid.

I get that you think you're going to change my mind. Meanwhile I get that I won't change yours, and I'm completely good with that.

I also get that you repeatedly hijacked the thread. You have officially reached your quota.

For all that we try hard not to kill innocent people, it still happens frequently. The fact that we're good at reducing the number of innocent people killed by our missiles doesn't change the fact that we are still killing innocent people in significant numbers. We may not be indiscriminately killing woman and children, but we are willfully killing them, because we take actions that we know will result in innocent people dying. We have to own up to that reality.

And we should also acknowledge that this does contribute to terrorism. That doesn't mean our innocent people "deserve" terrorism as you suggest Jorvik thinks, but it's something that it's important for us to understand. It should be part of our calculus when making policy decisions.

Valkenar wrote:For all that we try hard not to kill innocent people, ... we are willfully killing them.

I rest my case.

Those are your own words, Justin, absent the circumlocution.

Those are, and I stand by them. You can both try to avoid killing innocent people and still make choices that end up getting them killed. I don't see why what's hard to understand about that. It's like trying to avoid spending money on a car, but still driving it to work. You know you're going to wear out parts and have to have them repaired. When we decide to do a bunch of drone strikes, we know innocent people are going to die. We may minimize those deaths, but we still are responsible for them.

Bill wrote:

Valkenar wrote:And we should also acknowledge that this does contribute to terrorism.

So you're going to invoke the "she deserved to be raped" argument as well?

Oxygen contributes to terrorism as well, Justin. So do innocent people. Without them, we'd have no terrorism.

- Bill

No, that is not my argument, and it's disingenuous of you to characterize it as such. Nobody ever deserves to be raped. No behavior ever justifies rape. And I often advocate for a woman's right to wear whatever she wants and am often frustrated by people who argue that rape is her fault. Your comparison is way off-base. I'm not even going to try to explain in detail why that accusation is so wrong, because I think you're too smart to sincerely believe that analogy.

What I will point out is that the goal of the drone strikes is to reduce future terrorism. That is the reason they exist. There is also a degree to which killing innocent people contributes to terrorism, and drone strikes kill innocent people. Is there still a net reduction in terrorism? Maybe. Even if there is, we need to acknowledge that effect because it matters.

Your logic goes around the elbow to get from your thumb to your pinky, Justin. I'm calling you on your circumlocution and invoking Occam's Razor.

Valkenar wrote:that is not my argument, and it's disingenuous of you to characterize it as such.

Bullhockey. You're implying innocent people deserved to be slaughtered en masse. It's the "she deserved to be raped" argument. I'm not pulling punches here. That's exactly as I see it.

You're the one invoking taking on responsibility for one's choices. There's no excuse for rape, and there's no an excuse for TARGETING innocent civilians. Neither are crimes of passion, and neither can be justified or rationalized. Both are are crimes of violence. Both are special situations where the victim(s) should not be put on trial.

These arguments do not belong in this thread. Can I be any more clear?

Bill Glasheen wrote:Bullhockey. You're implying innocent people deserved to be slaughtered en masse. It's the "she deserved to be raped" argument. I'm not pulling punches here. That's exactly as I see it.

I've repeatedly rejected that perspective, and it's not at all what I'm implying. Read more carefully. I'll try one last time.

Our victims of terror do not deserve to be victimized. Read that again. Some of the things we do as a country increase animosity against us, which leads to terrorism. That doesn't mean the victims of terror deserve to be victimized. All it means is that actions we take contribute to it. It doesn't mean the victims of terror deserve to be victimized. There are two separate dimensions here. The efficacy of our terror prevention strategy is one. That's where the fact that we increase terrorism via animosity comes in. We lose efficacy when we kill innocent people. That doesn't mean the victims of terror deserve to be victimized, it means our strategy may be less effective than we think.

The other dimension is moral. We are responsible for the innocent lives lost when we go after terrorists. Even if it's an accident, the fact we know that it's going to happen means the moral burden is on us. That doesn't mean the victims of terror don't deserve to be victimized. We may be justified in killing those innocent people, but even so we can't just stick our heads in the sand and pretend like we didn't know what was going to happen. We are knowingly killing innocent people. It may not be our primary goal, and we may try to minimize it, but it happens, and we know it's going to happen. And because we know it's going to happen as a direct result of our actions, we bear the moral responsibility for those lives. And no, this doesn't justify terrorism.

Hi Bill! Hockey and Bull are two words that the folks in Canukistan can't conceive of placing together. You trying to start a holy war with the folks up north?...we take this game rather serious! Just saying hi!...Good luck with these two Kind of like conditioning..init!

Quote"Your logic goes around the elbow to get from your thumb to your pinky, Justin. I'm calling you on your circumlocution and invoking Occam's Razor. "

It's you who doesn't get it Bill ....look it's quite simple. If a country kills the innocent civillians of another country, then their own citizens become fair game. You want to talk about Rape?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings and what happened some US soldiers from the same group ( who were innocent by the way) were slaughtered by the Iraqi's in retaliation.

What goes around ,comes around...........Now my original point which you keep avoiding is what happened to the Saudi national?

and if you want to understand my referance to the IRA well they targeted English targets , they didn't go after targets in other countries the US for example. Now it's the same with Chechens.........they are against the Russians..so they target Russian targets..now if Chechens don't do this then maybe you start to question if they were terrorists at all.maybe they were nutjobs.....or as some newspapers have reported it CIA dupes.They certainly were not acting in the best interests of Chechyan independence

jorvik wrote:It's you who doesn't get it Bill ....look it's quite simple. If a country kills the innocent civillians of another country, then their own citizens become fair game.

I do not agree with this.

First of all, not everyone in the country agrees with the policy. How can someone who is against the decision (especially if they voted against the leaders) be equally culpable? Second, there is a self-defense element. We kill innocent civillians in the process of defending ourselves from people who are actively trying to kill us (at least that's the goal). We still bear the moral burden of the innocent people we kill, but it's not the same as if we were killing innocent people purely to influence political decisions.

I agree with part of this. I didn't vote for war in Iraq, afghanistan etc..but I have to accept that if my country is attacking their country then they will attack mine.

Also there is no justification for self defence if you have invaded their country. It is they who are defending and you who are attacking.And the whole American attitude to killing innocent civilians is just too blase...look at that clip I posed of the gunship murdering Reuters correspondences and kids who were helping them, no public outcry there

Feur wrote: Hi Bill! Hockey and Bull are two words that the folks in Canukistan can't conceive of placing together. You trying to start a holy war with the folks up north?...we take this game rather serious! Just saying hi!...Good luck with these two Kind of like conditioning..init!

~ Laird GM FEUR

Hello, Laird!

Yea... they never cease to entertain. It's the only reason I've let it go on this long.

Sorry Bill if this is further off topic. But the bombings disgust me and the logic disgusts me......

/Rant on

Didn't Obama get the Nobel Peace Prize?

this thread is really out there, I usually don't publicly comment on politics or religion, I'm guessing this breaks both those rules

we had Anzac day last week so I guess that could be influencing my view on the military and their sacrifice. I'm pretty confident that if it wasn't for people opposing what they thought wrong that Id be speaking either German, Russian or Japanese .... and none of them would be democracies either.

But ignoring all that , isn't it always about hate ..... nothing new there

there's many reasons to criticise, in fact its everyone's favourite pastime. If I was the Tsar things would be different

however there's another reason the US is a target , it's what it stands for ...... and its symbolism as the most powerful democracy in the world.

I think many in (mostly) free countries forget how much of the world isn't, and how that freedom is purchased.

one side in this fight is about oppression and control and togetherness by the common enemy

when you haven't got anything you better be against something ..... this is domestic and foreign

just like nature/nurture abhors a vacuum

the other side is about the ideal of freedom and liberty

I'll leave it to the peanut gallery to figure out which is which.

while I have my reservations I cant but Help think Jack had it a little right , when it comes to the ability to have these debates.

Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

Now just like the movies , there's a line and it gets blurred, and that's up for endless debate , but blurring the reasons of hate , that's just plain lazy and actually pretty futile, its just another apologist justification..... now where back the blame game rather than to self responsibility , if the US needs to own this, these countries need to own that... its a circular argument ... chicken/egg nowhere ......

This goes back further than any of us want to reach , and its a product of flawed culture and hate , But until hate gets stomped out by the masses of the reasonable mind, when we both stop worshipping at the alter of rhetoric , and we all make a concerted effort to stop the whack jobs together this is our reality . Kind of hard to stomp the 2 percent when the sheeple are too civilised to judge..... Or too uncivilised .....

where's the Bushi when we need them

heck look I can be an idealist too .... but I not holding my breath

Bart said it best

Your damned if you do and your damned if you don't

...... but at least you can sleep at night if you know why you do it isn't hate

Quote"Bradley Manning is no patriot. He's a punk who decided to get back at his unit and the military in general after he felt was being mistreated. I hope he gets more than this dumb bastard: "

what about those jerks in the gunship, are they brave patriots for killing unarmed innocent civilians??

I'll tell you now there is soooooo much hypocracy when americans talk about themselves and what they have done.....kill a few dozen at a innocents at a wedding party and it's " Collateral damage".....and then three die in Boston and it's an atrocity.

You know, innocent people fleeing for their lives generally behave in very predictable patterns. People who freeze in the face of danger, too, are fairly easy to identify, even in the midst of chaos. I've watched the same video, and I'm convinced they acted within their rules of engagement, set within the laws of armed conflict.

I can also say with a great deal of certainty that if a drone strike hadn't taken out a wedding party or two, the Boston Marathon would still have been bombed.